Gujarat High Court
Pankil Sunil Mohata vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 876 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PANKIL SUNIL MOHATA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. I.H. SYED, LD. SR. ADV. with MR ANKIT B PANDYA(5906) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/02/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
2. The present successive application is filed under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11205032231333 of
2023 registered with the Mundra Police Station, Kachchh West-
Bhuj of the offence punishable under Sections 365, 342, 389,
384, 120B read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 7, 8,
12, 13 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Ankit B. Pandya appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was
arrested on 16.10.2023 and he is in jail ever since. Learned
senior advocate Mr. Syed has also submitted that the
investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet
has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the first
information report has been filed against total six persons, out
of which, except the present applicant-accused, rest of the
accused persons are the police personnel serving in the Crime
Branch at Kachchh. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has
further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, on
13.04.2023, the members of the Crime Branch intercepted one
truck fully loaded with betel nuts in respect of evasion of
custom duty. During the search, it was found that the goods
lying in the truck belongs to the complainant and his partner.
Therefore, the police personnel paid visit to the godown of the
complainant and abducted the manager of the complainant
from the said godown who was then beaten and abused by the
raiding party. The complaint further states that thereafter the
complainant received a call on his WhatsApp from the present
applicant-accused who told the complainant that police is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
demanding Rs.5 Crores to settle the dispute, however, due to
his intervention, the amount of settlement is reduced to 3.75
Crores. As the complainant agreed to pay the said amount,
the dispute was settled and the truck as well as the manager
of the complainant were released by the police. It is alleged
that thereafter the complainant and his partner paid the
amount of Rs.3.75 Crores to the applicant-accused through
various modes and the said amount thereafter, according to
the applicant-accused, was transferred to the members of the
crime branch. It is submitted that the allegations against the
applicant-accused are that the present applicant-accused, in
collusion with the other accused persons (police officials),
planned a conspiracy and as a part of the said conspiracy,
extorted an amount of Rs.3,75 Crores from the complainant.
Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has submitted that after
intercepting the truck, as police came to know that the present
applicant-accused is having contact with the complainant, the
police approached the present applicant and told him to speak
to the complainant and make a deal with him. It is moreso
submitted that in this entire scenario, the present applicant-
accused has played a role of a mediator at the behest of the
police party and the complainant.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has submitted that the
incident in question took place on 13.04.2023 for which the
first information report has been registered on 10.10.2023, i.e,
after a delay of almost six months. It is submitted that before
registration of the complaint, i.e, during the interregnum
period, the dispute was settled between the complainant and
the applicant-accused as Rs.3.62 Crores had already been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
repaid by the applicant-accused to the complainant which has
been reduced into writing by filing an affidavit duly affirmed by
the complainant wherein it is very categorically stated that due
to some misunderstanding disputes have been cropped up
between them and now the entire dispute has been settled as
the amount, which was given to the applicant-accused by the
complainant, has already been repaid by the applicant-
accused. The said affidavit has also been annexed along with
the memo of the petition. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed
has submitted that even the present applicant-accused is the
victim in the present case as a huge amount has been extorted
from him. It is further contended that the present applicant-
accused has not gained any monetary benefit from the entire
alleged transaction. Even in the complaint filed by the
complainant with the Inspector General, Border Range, Bhuj
dated 27.06.2023, he has stated that he has already received
a sum of Rs.3.62 Crores and only an amount of Rs.13 Lakh is
outstanding. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has further
submitted that a criminal complaint has also been registered
against the complainant under the various provisions of the IPC
for evading various taxes and duties in respect of import and
export of betel/arreca nuts. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed
has further submitted that the present complaint is nothing but
a sheer misuse of process of law filed with an ulterior motive to
exert pressure upon the father of the applicant-accused, who is
having some financial dispute with the complainant. It is
submitted that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon
documentary evidence and all the documents pertaining to the
present case have already been seized by the Investigating
Officer and, therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
the prosecution evidence.
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned senior
advocate Mr. Syed prays that there being merit in his
application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be
enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.
6. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya appearing
on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular
bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is
submitted that the role of the present applicant-accused is
clearly spelt out from the materials available on record.
Learned APP Mr. Pandya has submitted that the applicant-
accused has demanded huge amount from the complainant
under the coercion of registration of false criminal complaint
against him. Learned APP has further submitted that the
applicant-accused was hand in glove with the other accused
persons to extort the money from the complainant. It was the
applicant-accused who was made a phone call to the
complainant and demanded the bribe money under the guise
of settlement. Even the amount of bribe was also transferred in
the account of the applicant-accused. Learned APP Mr. Pandya
has submitted that the present applicant-accused was a part of
the said conspiracy since very beginning and has played his
role very smartly. The present applicant-accused was the main
bridge between the complainant and the other accused
persons while committing the offence. Learned APP Mr. Pandya
has also submitted that the present applicant-accused is
having the criminal history and two offences have been
registered against him, out of which, in one offence order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
conviction has been passed against him. It is further submitted
that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused,
this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is
not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-
accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Akash Joshi appearing for the
original complainant has also vehemently opposed the present
application and submitted that the present applicant-accused
is the kingpin in the entire conspiracy. Learned advocate Mr.
Joshi has submitted that the present applicant-accused was
known to the complainant and there was some past business
transactions between them, due to which, the complainant
owed an amount of Rs.1.28 crores from the present applicant-
accused. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted
that the present applicant-accused, in connivance with the
other co-accused, planned a conspiracy to extort money from
the complainant under the coercion of registering false
complaint against him. It was the present applicant-accused
who contacted the complainant through WhatsAPP call on the
date of the incident and informed him about the confiscation of
his truck and demand of bribe of Rs.5 Crore by the police. It is
submitted that none of the police personnel have ever
contacted or demanded any amount as a bribe. Learned
advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the present applicant-
accused was the mastermind in designing the entire plan as he
had all the knowledge about the dispatch of the truck of the
complainant containing betel nuts. His role is like a bridge
between the complainant and the other accused persons
(police personnel) in taking the bribe. The present applicant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
accused was the first person who approached the complainant
with a proposal to give money to the police for the purpose of
release of his truck. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted
that if the applicant-accused had nothing to do with the said
transaction and all what has been done by the applicant-
accused was in a good faith, then why he has repaid a huge
sum of Rs.3.62 Crore to the complainant from his own pocket.
Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has drawn the attention of this
Court to the letter addressed by the applicant-accused to the
Dy. S.P., Palanpur wherein he has very specifically narrated the
entire sequence of events of the entire incident. A complete
detail as regards as to from whom and how much amount the
applicant-accused had collected and then how much amount
was handed over to which officer has been clearly mentioned
in the said letter. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted
that when the complainant made an application before the
highest authority of the police, the applicant-accused came to
him and met him in one hotel and told the complainant to
withdraw the said application as he is agreed to pay the entire
amount. Accordingly, he has repaid the maximum volume of
the amount and now Rs.13 Lakh is still outstanding. Learned
advocate Mr. Joshi has moreso submitted that the father of the
applicant-accused is a very influential person who right now is
absconding in one smuggling case and staying at Dubai.
Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the sum and
substance of what has been narrated herein above is that the
present applicant-accused is the key accused who planned
the entire conspiracy in connivance with the police personnel.
He was having the entire knowledge about the movement of
the truck and the consignment of the complainant. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
applicant-accused was the person who extorted the money
and abducted the employee of the complainant.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned
advocate Mr. Joshi prays that there being no merit in this
application, the same be rejected and the discretion should not
be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties. I have also pursued the contents of the bail
application, objections raised by the State as well as the
complainant and bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the
material aspects involved in the case.
10. Before deciding the case in hand, I would like to
enumerate the factors which should be taken in consideration
while granting or refusing bail in a non-bailable case. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case laws titled as State of
U.P vs Amarmani Tripathy, reported in 2005(8) SCC 21, vide
paragraph- 18 and in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 448 OF 2021 (@
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. 3577 0F 2020) [Sudha
Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, judgment
delivered on 24-04-2021] has culled out certain factors to be
taken in consideration while deciding bail application in non-
bailable offences as under:-
"It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an
application for the bail are:-
(I) whether there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused has committed the offence;
(II) nature and gravity of charge;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
(III) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(IV) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if
released on bail;
(V) character, behavior, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(VI) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(VII) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with; and
(VIII) danger, of-course the justice being thwarted by
grant of bail."
11. In 2019 Supreme (J&K) 220 (Naresh Singh Versus State of
J&K), His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan while
granting bail to the accused indicted for commission of
offences u/s 12 of POCSO Act r/w 342 RPC and discussing the
concept of 'personal liberty' enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India vis-à-vis the general rule of law that "bail
is rule" & "jail is an exception", in paras 7 and 8 of the
judgment held as under:-
"7. It is a trite law that personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and deprivation of liberty is a matter
of grave concern. It should be curtailed only when it
becomes imperative to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. When a person is arrested on
the allegations of commission of non-bailable offence,
two conflicting interests are pitted against each other,
that is, liberty of individual involved and interest of
society so as to prevent crime and punish criminal. It
becomes responsibility of the courts to weigh the
contrary factors. The object of detaining a person in
judicial custody is to direct him to join the investigation,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
secure his presence at trial, he may not interfere with
investigation, intimidate witnesses, tamper with
evidence, flee from justice, chances of repeating the
offence etc., and if this purpose can be fulfilled by putting
certain conditions and securing bail bonds, it would be an
ideal blending of two apparently conflicting claims.
8. A fundamental postulate of Criminal Jurisprudence is
the presumption of innocence, which means a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. Another facet
of our Criminal Jurisprudence is that grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception
(Bail but not jail). Grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of a Judge considering a case, but such
discretion should be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily."
12. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) further makes the legal
proposition manifestly clear, that fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence lies in
favour of accused who is presumed to be innocent till guilt is
proved, grant of bail is a general rule and its refusal is an
exception and deprivation of personal liberty must be
considered as punishment.
13. In 2007 Supreme (J&K) 48 (Mohd. Razak & Anr. Versus
State of J&K & Anr.), Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh (His Lordship
then was Judge of J&K High Court) while granting bail to
accused persons arrested in offence u/s 5(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 caught red handed in a trap while
demanding & accepting bribe of Rs. 1000, in paras 8, 9, 10, 11
& 12 held as under:-
"8. So long as there were no such Special provisions in
force providing severe punishment and stringent
provisions regarding bail during investigation and trial of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and such
like other Laws, persons accused of offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, cannot, in my
opinion, be treated differently to deny them
consideration for bail during investigation and trial
merely because they were alleged to be involved for
infraction of offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 2006.
9. While considering release of persons accused of
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, general
principles governing grant or refusal of bail and provision
of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
undoubtedly required to be kept in view, and bail in such
non-bailable offences may not be claimed, as of right,
and in the absence of any special circumstances
warranting refusal of bail, the well recognized principle
that bail is the rule and refusal an exception would
always be a guiding factor for the Courts while
considering the grant or refusal of bail in such cases.
10. I, therefore, do not see any substance in Mr.
Salathiass submission that the petitioners were required
to be treated differently because they had been arrested
under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
2006.
Argument of State counsel that the petitioners would
tamper with the prosecution evidence, too appears to be
conjectural and a mere surmise.
The petitioners have remained under custodial
investigation for over a week. They, under the Service
Rules applicable to them are deemed to have been
suspended.
11. Therefore, I do not think it to be appropriate to keep
them in police custody any more lest their detention in
custody may amount to punishment sans trial.
12. For all what has been said above, these applications
are allowed and petitioners are directed to be released
from custody on their furnishing personal recognizance
and recognizance of a surety each, in the amount of Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
10,000/- to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this
Court. The petitioners shall file an undertaking that they
would not come directly or indirectly in contact with the
prosecution witnesses and shall not impede in any
manner whatsoever, the course of investigation."
14. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) further makes the legal
proposition manifestly clear, that even in cases under
the Prevention of Corruption Act where no special provisions
for bail are provided, these cases are governed by the
provisions of Section 497 (437) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and bail in such non-bailable offences may not be
claimed as a matter of right, but the grant or refusal of bail is
well recognized by the principle that "bail is rule" and "refusal
is an exception".
15. Now, coming back to the grips of the present case, it is
significant to note that the present applicant-accused has
already repaid the substantial amount of Rs.3.62 Crores and
now the left over amount is Rs.13 Lakh only, which has also
been reduced into writing by way of filing an affidavit, duly
affirmed by the complainant which is a part and parcel of the
record. This Court does not think it fit at this juncture to go into
the question whether the applicant-accused has actually gained
any monetary benefit or not from the said transaction. What is
important to be kept in mind at this stage is that the applicant-
accused has shown his bona fide and returned back the huge
volume of amount to the complainant before registration of the
FIR. There is also a delay of almost six months in registering the
first information report. Now the investigation has already been
completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed against the
applicant-accused. The entire case of the prosecution hinges
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
upon documentary evidence and all the documents have
already been seized by the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation and, therefore, there is no likelihood of
tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. The applicant-
accused was arrested on 16.10.2023 and he is in jail ever
since. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicant-accused
has carved out a strong case for grant of bail in his favour.
16. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
[2012]1 SCC 40. I may quote some of the observations made
by the Supreme Court in the said decision which read thus;
"13. The appellants are facing trial in respect of the
offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read 2 with 13(i)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail has been
refused first by the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and
subsequently, by the High Court. Both the courts have
listed the factors, on which they think, are relevant for
refusing the Bail applications filed by the applicants as
seriousness of the charge; the nature of the evidence in
support of the charge; the likely sentence to be imposed
upon conviction; the possibility of interference with
witnesses; the objection of the prosecuting authorities;
possibility of absconding from justice.
14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure
the appearance of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment begins after conviction,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it
was appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
From time to time, necessity demands that some un-
convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial
to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would
be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be
punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has
not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that
he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in
the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the
question of prevention being the object of a refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would be improper for any Court
to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or
to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of
giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
15. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that
the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants
is 'the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged
are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the
State Exchequer. Though, they contend that there is
possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they
have not placed any material in support of the allegation.
In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of
the relevant considerations while considering bail
applications but that is not the only test or the factor :
The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is
the punishment that could be imposed after trial and
conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and
Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is
the only test, we would not be balancing the
Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the
scales of justice." The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer
discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail
to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be
exercised with great care and caution by balancing
valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest
of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning
adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed
by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole
basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system.
It transcends respect for the requirement that a man
shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If
such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic
situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an
individual.This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 : (AIR 2005 SC 921), observed
that "under the criminal laws of this country, a person
accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be
detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless
he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such
detention cannot be questioned as being violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is
authorized by law. But even persons accused of non-
bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court
concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution
has failed to establish a prima facie case against him
and/or if the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded
that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is
need to release such accused on bail, where fact
situations require it to do so."
16. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the
rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also
observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308 : (AIR 1977 SC
2447), this Court opined:
"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as
bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances
suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the
course of justice or creating other troubles in the
shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks
enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved
is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course
of justice and must weigh with us when considering
the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the
crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this
case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in
the trial court and he was released after the
judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to
suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him
by the court; his social circumstances also are not
so unfavourable in the sense of his being a
desperate character or unsocial element who is
likely to betray the confidence that the court may
place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands
of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27
years with a family to maintain. The circumstances
and the social milieu do not militate against the
petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the
same time any possibility of the absconsion or
evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a
direction that the petitioner will report himself
before the police station at Baren once every
fortnight."
25. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both
the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on
two grounds :- The primary ground is that offence alleged
against the accused persons is very serious involving
deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is
caused to the State Exchequer ; the secondary ground is
that the possibility of the accused persons tempering
with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is
that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as
genuine a forged document. The punishment of the
offence is punishment for a term which may extend to
seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the
charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the
punishment to which the party may be liable, if
convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in
determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
of the charge and the severity of the punishment should
be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant
bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or
denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. But at the same
time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of
the sentiments of the community against the accused.
The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to
relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State
of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at
the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the
custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction,
to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the
Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his
presence is required. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and
Ors. v. State, AIR 1978 SC 179, observed that two
paramount considerations, while considering petition for
grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the
seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the
accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the
prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of
the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by
the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the
same is not convincing.
26. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail
custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or
arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is:
whether the same is possible in the present case. There
are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the
witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the
documents on which reliance is placed by the
prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take
considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants,
who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the
period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in
the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an
indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against
the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge
loss to the State Exchequer, that, by itself, should not
deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there
is no serious contention of the respondent that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial
or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason
to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the
completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-
sheet.This Court, in the case of State of Kerala v. Raneef
(2011) 1 SCC 784 : (AIR 2011 SC 340), has stated :-
"15. In deciding bail applications an important
factor which should certainly be taken into
consideration by the court is the
delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes
several years, and if the accused is denied bail but
is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many
years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the
Constitution, which is the most basic of all the
fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated
in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor,
but it is certainly one of the important factors in
deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case
the respondent has already spent 66 days in
custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counteraffidavit),
and we see no reason why he should be denied bail.
A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up
like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of
Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his
name in the Bastille."
28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are
charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We
are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if
proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At
the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed investigation
and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special
Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the
custody may not be necessary for further investigation.
We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the
grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order
to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail,
prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular
bail.
18. Hence, the present application is allowed and the
applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11205032231333 of
2023 registered with the Mundra Police Station, Kachchh West-
Bhuj, on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions
that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within
a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned
with the further condition not to leave the
revenue limits of Taluka: Gandhidham for initial
period of twelve (12) months;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station
on alternate Monday of every English calendar
month for a period of six months between
11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the
time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior
permission of this Court;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/876/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
19. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time
being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed,
the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or
take appropriate action in the matter.
20. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having
jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned
Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above
conditions, in accordance with law.
21. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this
stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
